CP+ 2015: Nikon Interview - 'We learned from the D600 episode'

CP+ Nikon Interview

When we attended CP+ earlier this year in Yokohama, Japan we sat down with senior executives from several major camera and lens manufacturers. We were lucky enough to sit down with a number of Nikon engineers to ask them about their overall strategy with respect to FX vs DX, and DSLR vs mirrorless. We were also able to ask pointed technical questions regarding innovative technologies in Nikon cameras, and the answers were very enlightening. So without further ado...

Can you give us a description of your strategy for APS-C vs. Full-frame DSLRs? How do you see those two product lines developing?

We consider both formats important for us. It just depends on the application on the part of the users, and it also depends on what needs the customer has. But we consider both lines important. As for future product line, we are sorry we cannot answer that question.

Nikon continues to create many more FX format lenses than DX. Does this signify a different approach to the two platforms?

We don’t consider that we manufacture more FX than DX lenses; we’ll focus on both.

So the different number of lenses released for the two platforms – does that mean you’ve had more work to do on full-frame?

We don’t feel we have more FX than DX products now; we have a full line-up in FX as well.

Do you think there’s space in your DX line-up for a professional DX camera? Something to directly replace the D300S?

We have top-end for FX, but we don’t have one for DX. Canon has an equivalent [professional DX] product – the 7D Mark II – which [I assume] is why you ask this question. We will not deny any possibility of developing further lineup in DX, and any range in the future.

Announced six years ago, the D300S was Nikon's last 'professional APS-C DSLR. Could there be another one round the corner?

So FX is not your professional product, and DX is not your consumer product?

No, that’s not how we see these two ranges.

Nikon reacted extremely quickly to the D750 flare issue - much more quickly than to the D600 oil spots problem. Does this reflect a change in approach to feedback and quality assurance?

Thank you for that comment. Every time we encounter an issue, we revisit the QA process. In the case of the D600, we also reviewed the QA process at that time [after the issue was raised]. We’ll continue to improve our QA and service by quickly responding to the customer’s voice.

What did you learn from the D600 episode?

In the case of our handling of the D600 issue, we took too much time before we got our response to the customer. That was an issue we realized, and we took that as a lesson, and took quicker action on the D750. We learned from the D600 episode.

One thing we’ve seen with DSLRs in the D5500 and D3300 class is that as resolution gets higher, AF accuracy becomes critical. With higher-end DSLRs we microadjust focus routinely, but this feature is not available on the D3000/5000 series of cameras. How are you dealing with this issue?

We don’t have micro-adjustment on that class of cameras. We do have stringent quality criteria and standards, and based on these standards, we don’t see any problem with not having micro-adjustment for that class of cameras. But going forward, we don’t deny that this may be an option in the future.

The Nikon D5500 has an advanced 39-point AF system but does not offer autofocus fine-tuning, which makes it less reliable when paired with large-aperture primes, where small focus inaccuracies are made very obvious by the high-resolution 24MP sensor.

So this would not be a problem with mirrorless.

Correct - mirrorless uses contrast AF, and there is no problem as long as contrast detection AF is being used.

The obvious next question is: as resolution increases and mirrorless becomes more practical for AF accuracy reasons, when will Nikon create mirrorless products with an equivalent specification to these entry-level DSLRs?

As for SLRs, we’ll continue to improve accuracy of AF and Live View AF. For mirrorless, we have the Nikon 1 series. We have D-series SLRs, Nikon 1 mirrorless, and our CoolPix line as well. We’ll ensure the best product mix to meet the wide range of customer needs.

The 1-system is 4 years old, and it hasn’t gained wide-spread acceptance among enthusiasts, at least not in the US. If you could go back, knowing what you know now, would you have done anything differently?

The benefit of Nikon 1 is that it’s very small. Its also good at capturing moving subjects, and it’s very high speed. This is a new value proposition to the customer. So, no we wouldn’t have taken a different approach. We have two different categories: the D-line and the 1-series, and with these lineups, we believe we’ll meet all the needs of customers.

Do you think there’s a place for a bigger sensor mirrorless camera in your line-up?

As for the possibility of larger sensor mirrorless - since competitors have already done this, technically speaking it’s possible. However, we want to highlight the advantage of the Nikon 1 system: it’s very small, including its lenses. For example, last year, we launched the V3, and photographers, especially those specializing in aviation industry and birds, highly appreciated the Nikon 1 series’ benefits: portability and small size. We still believe that Nikon 1 has room for further evolution. This is the area we want to put effort in to, rather than making bigger sensor mirrorless cameras.

But when the EVF and grip are attached the V3 is about as large as some APS-C mirrorless cameras and not much smaller than some full-frame models...

Last year we launched the V3 with the 70-300mm telephoto lens, which is equivalent to more than 800mm in terms of full-frame. Yet [the lens] was palm size. So this is the biggest benefit of the Nikon 1 system. On top of that, in the beginning of this year, we announced the development of a SDK for the Nikon 1 series. This will allow it to have advanced camera control abilities. The Nikon 1 cameras are very suitable for quiet operation, so we’ll focus on the remote trigger and control capabilities.

ISO 64 on the D810 was something new, despite the 36MP Sony sensor in the camera typically having a base ISO of 100 in previous cameras. Does this mean that Nikon has a lot of customization and influence over the sensor development, despite it being a Sony sensor?

We can’t speak about [third parties that] we work with. This is a position of Nikon - we will find the areas where we can show our strengths, and we’ll research and develop such areas, and commercialize that technology.

The D810 offers class-leading dynamic range at ISO 64. Those graduated ND filters in your bag from your days of shooting Velvia are quickly becoming less relevant- here's a single exposure shot with a D810 that captures an impressive scene dynamic range. We were curious as to why the new D810A, specialized for astrophotography, only goes down to a rated base ISO of 200.

Why is the base ISO of the D810A ISO 200, whereas the D810 goes down to ISO 64? We’ve found the Raw dynamic range to be class-leading at ISO 64 on the D810.

What we did for the D810A is new to us: we changed the characteristics of the IR cut filter in front of the image sensor. We transmit four times as much light at 657nm [as usual]. Because that sensitivity went up significantly, we couldn’t achieve a base ISO of 64. In other words, the D810A has better sensitivity in red areas, and the resulting color balancing leads to higher blue and green sensitivities. This leads to the higher base ISO of 200.

We like the introduction of electronic front curtain in the D810, but we think it would be very useful if it were available in all shooting modes, especially if paired with short exposure delays. The first press of the shutter button could move the mirror up and open the shutter, and after a short delay, the exposure could be initiated electronically.

Thank you very much for your idea!

If you offered delays shorter than one second, such an implementation could work for hand-held shooting and would eliminate all potential sources of sharpness-reducing vibrations.

Yes, the D810 has special requirements in terms of shutter speed, so we can’t follow the regular sequence other models have. We understand your comments though and the potential needs, so we will explore the possibility in the future.

If you had to convince a first-time camera buyer to invest in a D5500 over - say - a Sony a6000, what would you tell them?

I think the optical viewfinder is a strong point of our SLR system. This allows users to be able to take pictures as they see [them]. This is our competitive advantage. Of course mirrorless is smaller, but our SLRs offer other advantages, such as our family of lenses and accessories. The D5500 is a great introduction to SLR photography.

Nikon's 3D tracking offers class-leading subject tracking, allowing the camera to track an initially chosen subject (the eye, in this case) despite subject, or camera movement. Cross-type AF points (shown in blue), however, are limited to the central region only.

One of the shortcomings of Nikon’s AF sensors are the more centrally-located cross-type points. Do you plan to employ cross-type points spread further across the frame?

Using cross-type sensors may help improve AF performance, and we know that Canon is using cross-type sensors in many different models. However, this does come at a higher cost, and we have to take all these factors into consideration. Including not just the number of cross sensors, but also the area and layout of the sensor.

We understand there are pros and cons, but we have to strike a balance. For example, our recent AF systems now work down to -3 EV. We must consider the needs of our target users – in this case, whether or not they need cross-sensors.

What is the most difficult challenge for you as resolution of sensors increases?

There are a number of elements involved: (1) the image processing capability to process the ultra-high resolution images; (2) capturing the pictures without vibrations; (3) the capabilities of the lenses to capture all the detail; and (4) AF accuracy.

Editors' note:

This interview was a tough one to edit, partly because it was conducted with several interlocutors, and partly because much of it was 'off the record'. Hopefully though, if you've read this far you'll have learned a few things. We were encouraged to hear Nikon representatives acknowledging the company's slow response to the D600's oily sensor issue, and it's obvious that lessons have been learned. The much less serious 'flare-gate' problem that affected some D750 bodies was dealt with much more quickly, and this kind of responsiveness builds customer trust.

Users of Nikon's APS-C format DSLRs and lenses should be reassured too that Nikon appears (or certainly claims) to be placing equal importance on development of DX and FX. We've yet to see this pay off in terms of DX lens development, but the D7200 (which was released after this interview was conducted) is certainly a very strong player in the high-end APS-C class. There's some hope too for people waiting for a 'D400' - in our interview, Nikon executives actually admitted that they don't have a 'top-end' APS-C DSLR like the Canon EOS 7D II. While not by any means a confirmation that Nikon is working on one, we definitely got the impression that the executives we were speaking to believe that there's room for a 'professional' DX format DSLR in their lineup. You (didn't quite) read it here first.

We spent quite a lot of time in this interview talking about two challenges facing DSLR makers in an era of 24MP+ resolution sensors. Namely, AF accuracy and shutter/mirror vibration-induced softness. Both of these problems are largely side-stepped in mirrorless designs (although it took many manufacturers a while to really address shutter shock, and cameras like the Sony a7R have still not remedied this issue). Starting with autofocus, as a consequence of their reliance on off-sensor phase-detection AF modules, all DSLRs are vulnerable to AF inaccuracies. These issues become more and more noticeable at higher capture resolutions, and with faster lenses. High-end DSLRs tend to offer some kind of AF fine-tuning, but it's a cumbersome process, and only valid for one subject distance and one focal length.

Worse, entry-level models like Nikon's D5500 and Canon's Rebels don't even offer any provision for AF adjustment at all (though you can send your body and lens in for adjustment by the manufacturer). This make shooting with fast prime lenses something of a lottery when it comes to AF inaccuracy (trust us, we've tried it). There is innovation on this front - Sigma's USB dock, for example, allows for calibration of four different subject distance and focal length ranges with their lenses. Canon offers calibration for two ends of a zoom, and holds patents for using sensor-based contrast-detect AF to self-calibrate phase-detect modules (though we haven't seen any fruits of this patent yet).

What Nikon brings to the table with regards to accurate autofocus is the most usable and trust-worthy subject identification and tracking to date - which ensures that the camera focuses on what you want it to focus on. To be frank, Nikon's '3D' subject tracking leaves its competition in the dust. However, we were specifically curious if Nikon was working on any advancements to AF accuracy and precision of their modules in combination with their lenses, but were only able to get a generic statement that they are working towards higher standards for AF calibration and tolerances.

The other major challenge faced by DSLR manufacturers is shutter/mirror vibration-induced softness. Flagship products like the D800-series must be shot very carefully if mirror and shutter-induced softness is to be avoided at certain shutter speeds. And though Nikon's redesign of the mirror and inclusion of electronic front curtain in the D810 is a huge step forward, the reality is that it's still practically difficult to get the most out of these high resolution sensors. The D810 in particular has usability issues around its otherwise excellent electronic front curtain in that it's limited to Mirror Up mode. Furthermore, all high resolution offerings from all brands exhibit deleterious interactions between mirror/shutter vibrations and optical stabilization systems (our initial tests of the Canon EOS 5DS show that it is no exception).

In the end, this requires a meticulous approach to shooting, or often limiting yourself to certain shutter speeds, in order to maximize the resolution offered by these sensors. On a positive note, when we raised these points with Nikon engineers in our meeting, it sparked a lengthy off-record discussion.

And that brings us to our final point: we were particularly impressed by the open respect displayed of competitor's offerings: Nikon themselves openly admitted that the 7D II was a top-of-the-line professional DX camera, and that Canon's use of cross-type sensors across their entire AF array is an advantage. They were also very open to critical feedback- when we mentioned particular issues, Nikon executives were very interested in continuing conversations and critically analyzing our feedback. This attitude speaks highly of the company, and makes us confident that Nikon is interested in listening to good ideas to make their products better. And that's really the best you can hope for.

First off Great interview. Secondly, great responses. I was not a huge Nikon fan but I respected their products. However, after this interview I can truly see how dedicated they are to their customers.

This is in stark contrast to the last Canon interview where they basically said F.U. we are better than everyone else and if you don't like it then we don't care.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Canon is doomed simply because of their attitude towards their customers. I know their downfall won't happen anytime soon but it will happen one day unless they adopt a great attitude like Nikon demonstrated in this interview.

I really hope that they keep developing the 1 series. I really liked their most recent iteration of that camera. Give it a few more iterations and I think they might actually be able to gain some traction in the mirrorless world.

Back spacing handicaps them from making good quality wide angle lenses for DX cameras and not something that can be reasonably or economically overcome. Nikon is clearly steering their customers to see FF as the upgrade path, in my opinion. They only make two lenses for DX wider than 18mm (27mm eq), neither is new and neither is very good, just average. No primes wider than 35mm. So their answers aren't truthful. You're expected to be happy with a variety of super zooms, all starting at 18mm.

Hate to be factually difficult, but Nikon make more than two sub 18mm lenses.12-2410-2417-5516-8510.5 - which technically is a prime wider than 35.I'm not a super discerning user, but I'm happy with the 16-85, though I'd have preferred it was constant ƒ/4 or faster.

Nikon did not learn enough from D600 problem. The af-s 300mm f4e VR diffenatly has VR issue on the D810 with shutter speeds under 250. This is very expensive lens for an f4 and we have waited way too long for it, but do not see Nikon response yet for this issue. Hope they do soon.

This is more about camera manufacturers learning about underlying problems that are becoming more visible with high resolution sensors than anything else. Nikon's not alone here, as Canon and Sony are in the same camp.

But I'm glad you brought this up - there needs to be more awareness of it. We're shortly publishing a comprehensive piece showing what you describe - and it's not just limited to that particular lens, nor to that body/brand.

No, it's not an issue unique to that lens, it's an issue in many other lenses, across many other systems.

Those are exactly the shutter speeds where we note some of the biggest effects of VR shaking the image in response to the shutter actuation on a number of cameras, including the D810, the 5DS, and the a7R.

You'll notice it more with longer focal length lenses, and on higher resolution bodies.

Like I said, we have some comprehensive studies we'll publish soon showing similar results with other lenses, other systems. And we've already showed it in our D810 preview.

No, it's not anything but typical. You are once again making assumptions without data. Have you tried the controlled test side by side?

And, OK, imagining it were a Canon lens on a high resolution body... What am I supposed to see? The same thing right? Because that's what we see with the venerable 70-200 F2.8L II IS on a 5DS at 200mm with IS on shooting through the OVF (at all shutter speeds between 1/125s and 1/2s).

You may not be used to this yet because you haven't been shooting on a high resolution body.

P.S. No, we're not allowed to show you these 100% crops from the 5DS, but trust me we have them, and they show exactly what you're seeing in that 300mm crop, if not worse.

What you see there is excessive, and you know that. I have no idea if it is an actual problem but I know that it is not typical. It is much worse than what I see in your D810 preview test.

I have shot on a somewhat lower (15mp on crop) and on close pixel density (18mp on crop) body compared to the 5DS, with FF lenses, and I am not an exception. Actually, you cannot find a lower pixel density C/N crop body today (lower than the 5DS) and people use telephoto FF lenses all the time.

That's because in our preview test, we'd given time for all the mirror vibrations to dampen in order to isolate the effect of the shutter only.

But with both the mirror and shutter at play, results like what you see in that 300mm review is exactly what you expect, not just from that lens, and not just from that camera, and certainly not just from that brand of camera now with the high resolution offerings from Canon.

We haven't tested crop bodies yet so we'll have to leave that out of the discussion b/c we don't have data on it yet. And we can't compare FF to crop, b/c there are other factors at play then, including focal length vs. equivalent focal length, size of shutter, size of mirror, etc. - all of which make our FF results not directly relevant to crop results.

The fact that most people think it's 'not typical' is exactly why I'm glad this was brought up by the OP- b/c it is typical if you're shooting hi-res FF w/ IS lenses at long focal lengths at those shutter speeds.

And how many of those people who think it's not typical have done actual controlled side-by-sides?

I'll give you a concrete example- recently I asked a well-known wildlife photographer if he'd encountered this issue. He said 'no', but was kind enough to send me some full-res files. I saw it immediately, but probably only b/c I'd been looking for vertical shake extensively recently from doing all these tests. Yet he'd missed it in thousands of his own shots.

IOW, if you don't know what you're looking for, you'll often see this in the real world as just a shot that requires more sharpening, or slightly misfocused, or slight motion blur, or combination thereof. And remember, it's mostly within that particular shutter speed range, which isn't exactly a range wildlife photogs use.

@jpino - "What's the problem to use full frame (FX) lenses on DX?" some of the light that could be directed on the sensor ends up on the walls of the mirror box. To some extent this is inevitable due to rectangular sensors and round lenses, but FX lenses on DX sensors exacerbate the issue.

They mentioned Canon twice (without any disrespect) even when they didn't need to. I liked this openness and honesty. Answer regarding cross type points was interesting. I wonder what would be the extra cost for, say, doubling the cross type points?

For me the take away points are:Technology is nearly mature, there will only be incremental upgrades in near future.Everyone is working under economic constraints, this is more true for Nikon than few others.Similar to Canon, they believe that OVF is their strength and at the moment they should play by their strength and not invest in mirrorless heavily.

Overall, not an extremely interesting interview, but not boring either.

The line sensors take up space on the AF sensor, so you'd probably have to redesign it quite a bit. Canon's AF sensor is so crowded with line sensors goodness, b/c they've got so many cross-type points. I wonder if the space taken by the extra sensors come at the cost of light gathering ability.

@Rishi, given that the sidemost line sensors have light on them, I would not have though making say the 3 middle rows of sensors cross type would cost you light? I'd have thought the beamsplitter would not have to be bigger (ergo, no additional loss of light) as it's beam is already covering the entire area of the AF sensors' outer dimensions.

The D5500 has a touch-screen now. We need to be able to start retouching/processing photos, and publishing them, right from the camera, without having to go through a computer. The CPUs in the cameras should be able to handle these now.

What we need to hear from Nikon is how they're going to allow App developers to create apps for their cameras, to optimize the photography workflow.

It really is the workflow that defines the camera-phone market. Thanks to their ability to process and publish photos right on-the-spot, camera phones have the most optimal workflow that photographers want.

We need the same ability to do so with our D4s, and other dSLRs. I need to be able to quickly select, rotate, crop, brighten, highlight, spot remove, maybe Title with custom fonts, then upload to our newswire CMS, right from the Camera.

Pro photojournalists need to publish their photos QUICKLY, and Nikon needs to get on the ball for that.

I think you are choosing the wrong tool for the job you want to do. There are tons of cameras that do that without being weighed down by high mp counts and large file sizes that slow down the transfer.

"The reason is that my competitors are regular people using their cellphones and Instagram/Twitter. If they get the shot first, what good does it do me?" - it does Nikon quite a bit of good. You can buy a lovely wireless system attachment....

BTW I agree - in this day and age it is not unreasonable to expect some level of programability. At IMO built in useful wireless.

That's quite a laundry list of problems with the higher resolution sensors. Yet, DPR has in recent reviews - X100T and E-M5/2 - criticized the lower resolution (16MP) of the cameras. And in comments DPR has been defending their position, saying that there are no downsides for going to higher resolution. That seems to be inconsistent, if not even hypocritical.

But, it's still difficult to get the maximum potential out of these sensors. That doesn't meant they'll ever perform worse than lower resolution counterparts, though (well, save for the downsides of speed, size of files, etc.), in normalized comparison.

In other words, you're not going to get more shaky/blurry images on a higher resolution sensor b/c of, say, shutter shock; you may just not get the added benefit of the extra resolution (all else equal, of course). There are cases, however where all else is not equal - like the a7R not having an electronic shutter, but other cameras in the line having it. That puts the a7R at an actual disadvantage.

And the D810 does go far in ensuring you can at least get the benefit of the high-res, non-AA filter sensor - w/ Mup and EFC. Canon as well, w/ EFC in Live View.

Well, I have my own agenda too :) Though I am not as capable articulating it.

The problem as I see it is that higher resolution only addresses problems of several niches, but not the mass market.

IMO DPR is in a good position to poke manufacturers about the Foven-like, true color sensors.

Micro-blur is the icing on the "cake". And the cake stinks suspiciously.

High MP count has low ROI - if those pixels are crappy pixels.

Even with the high MP count, demosaicing of the images from Bayer sensor washes away the most of the fine details. (DPR has even implied as much in the E-M5/2's review of high-res mode.) And with monochrome sensors, one has to go much much higher in resolution to match the output of the true-color sensors. And still fail to match it, because the demosaicing still has to do the guesswork.

IMO, the MP race is simply misguided. Few need the higher resolution - while most would rather take better pixels. Yet manufacturers, and DPR supports them, keep throwing at us more crappy pixels, instead of actually addressing the problem at the root. High MP race also guarantees that misguided expectations of photographers make it harder and harder to introduce a usable true-color sensor, since the available tech (we have seen numerous patents over the years) can't match either sensitivity or resolution of the Bayer sensors. It doesn't need to - but the misguided expectations prevent the technology from ever leaving the research labs.

So... what do you have to say to the fact that the 36P Sony a7R has better low-light IQ than the 24MP a7 II? Or the fact that the 36MP Nikon D810 has similar low-light ISO performance to the 22MP Canon 5D Mark III?

Polite but vague and abysmal responses to direct questions regarding future products. Those who have been wishing for a pro DX body for years are still left with possibly and maybe as an answer. It's been the same answer for years. There is not much substance to the responses to most of the questions asked. Why am I not surprised ?

Fuji has the least to loose with an offhand remark. The x series required a communal effort to really get off the ground. Had Fuji stone faced it like nikon is here, they would have foundered after the x100 SAB issue. They embraced user support. That aspect has remained and it's in part (imho) the reason they keep releasing insufficiently tested, bug laden cameras. They know they can buy 6 extra months with firmware updates.

Well, no one's going to lose their job due to spilling the beans, that's for sure. Going out on a limb, I think they haven't ruled anything in or out. Also, nothing is on or off the table. Going forward, they're considering a lot of things they may or may not do.

What Nikon forgets is you are only as good as you last camera. Of course the Nikon N 4004 and 5005 were not so great way back for the film cameras. The 6006 and 8008s did better then began the N50, N90, N90s, N70, F100 as so forth. Point is nikon has been making cameras a long time. Every so often I guess they produce a Turkey.

If Nikon does not perceive mirrorless a threat or people stop buying the D4s and D750 then maybe. If Canon comes to the table maybe then.

What Fuji X has to do is start to produce competitive camera bodies and same would go for Samsung and Sony for the larger sensor mirrorless.

"We learned from the D600 episode." If that were true they would NOT have screwed up the D750 as well. They would of tested several bodys and tested the heck out of them. They learned how to react to problems, not how to PREVENT them with GOOD quality testing.

Modern digital cameras have thousands of moving parts, and it's not possible to catch every single potential problem.

We shot thousands of shots with the D750 and never had any issue with flare. That itself should be indicative of the infrequency of this issue and, therefore, the low likelihood that it would've been caught during the surely rushed release schedule that accompanies pretty much every product in today's cutthroat markets.

Every product has problems if you look hard enough for them. The 1D X even has flare problems - and we don't think it'd be fair to harp on Canon for missing that one either. Few have even found the issue, b/c it didn't 'flare' out of control from patient zero like it did for the D750 - which itself is a very interesting story.

Q: If you had to convince a first-time camera buyer to invest in a D5500 over - say - a Sony a6000, what would you tell them?

A: I think the optical viewfinder is a strong point of our SLR system. This allows users to be able to take pictures as they see [them]. This is our competitive advantage. Of course mirrorless is smaller, but our SLRs offer other advantages, such as our family of lenses and accessories. The D5500 is a great introduction to SLR photography.

With an OVF you can take pictures as you see them but the resulting pictures may not look anything like what you saw if the exposure, focus, WB, color profiles, etc.. aren't what you expected, problems all solved by an EVF. So I suppose it comes down to personal preference - either a more accurate depiction of what you see when looking through the camera vs what you get in your actual images.

An fyi: Some people, Example Kai Wong can just look at ANY scene and guess with 100% accuracy the correct settings, he has perfected the sunny 16 rule, his leica film camera he uses has a broken metering so he does the calculation in his head.

"Kai Wong can just look at ANY scene and guess with 100% accuracy the correct settings, he has perfected the sunny 16 rule, his leica film camera he uses has a broken metering so he does the calculation in his head."

And then he realizes he forgot the lens cap on. Something a TTL viewfinder could easily prevent. :)

Exactly my thoughts. I like to see "the end result" before I push the button, and most of the people I point this out to in the camera store I work at agree. The ever improving EVF will undo Nikon and Canon from there leadership DSLR position if they don't get on board soon, which I predict they will within 2 years.

At least in in North America, I think mirrorless will take far longer to knock DSLRs from their top position. I've noticed most young photographers will opt for a DSLR first as opposed to a mirrorless camera and use their smart phone as an auxiliary camera. DSLRs are just cheaper and more readily available. Not to mention the plethora of lens options available in both Canon and Nikon mounts.

Too much Kool-Aid on the tables at Nikon's headquarters and engineering locations. To be fair, they're no doubt hamstrung by the financial results of the overall company - I've spent my life working with companies to try to overcome those limits. But you can't figure out how to break out, until you acknowledge you're boxed in.

Even accounting for the Japanese cultural elements in the interview, it's clear that people in Nikon are flailing. Read the Fuji interview to see a great example of both Japanese cultural behaviors and a lack of Kool-Aid in the corporate cafeteria.

"Thank you very much for your idea!! We will explore the possibility in the future. We’ll ensure the best product mix to meet the wide range of customer needs."

They were polite and they deflected all interesting questions into explanations about how great their current product line is. The only time they provided answers was when they could talk about the improvements in their products. I liked the bit about the ISO 200 of the D810A.

'Deflecting' would've been refusing to admit anything is a problem. That's not what they did; for a number of concerns, they said they'd look into the possibility.

So it's not even about what they did and didn't tell us off-record; it's the fact that they didn't deny certain concerns, instead indicating their clear awareness of issues (like that full-frame mirrorless is obviously possible, that there are weak points of their AF modules but they optimized for A, B, and C, etc.).

We've been at interviews where no one admits any weakness or superiority of anything, ever.

@Rishi: Not everything was deflection, some of it was hand-waving and some of it were other tactics, but the deflection stuck with me because it happened early when you asked the FX/DX questions. Their answers were having the same form:

"We don’t consider that we manufacture more FX than DX lenses; we’ll focus on both."

"We don’t feel we have more FX than DX products now; we have a full line-up in FX as well."

They both have the form "We don't think that's the case, here's what is really happening", which deflects your question into what they want to say about their product line, which is basically, that it is great.

Funnily, in the second version they emphasize that the FX line is full as if the debate could only be about the fullness of the FX line, not the DX one, which cannot possibly be more complete than it already is. :)

It might be the engineering team but these were typical marketing answers. Standard responses like "DX and FX are equally important to us", "we don't see DX as consumer and FX as professional", but "we won't talk about whether we are working on a high-end APS-C model". Similarly "our quality control is great and we don't feel the need for AF tuning on D5000/D3000 type bodies", even though the higher end bodies which should have at least as good if not better quality control do have this feature. etc. Not unexpected at all of course. Canon/Nikon rarely reveal anything about their product plans. Perhaps the only thing of substance was the admission that we were slow on D600 response and learnt from it.

RANDOM: "Perhaps the only thing of substance was the admission that we were slow on D600 response."....Admission was they're only option here, anything less would have ignited another rage of wildfires from the readers. ;)

Q: One thing we’ve seen with DSLRs in the D5500 and D3300 class is that as resolution gets higher, AF accuracy becomes critical. With higher-end DSLRs we microadjust focus routinely, but this feature is not available on the D3000/5000 series of cameras. How are you dealing with this issue?

A: We don’t have micro-adjustment on that class of cameras. We do have stringent quality criteria and standards, and based on these standards, we don’t see any problem with not having micro-adjustment for that class of cameras.

So by inference this means Nikon professional and prosumer cameras with the AFMA feature have less stringent quality criteria and standards vs $400 entry-level bodies that don't have AFMA. :)

I was thinking the same thing and makes sense. On the bodies that have the adjustment, they don't have to as crucial maybe. I have always wondered this as I have never needed a tune on any of the non adjustment bodies.

"I have always wondered this as I have never needed a tune on any of the non adjustment bodies."

We've needed tuning on both adjustable and non-adjustable bodies. I don't think there are different standards applied to one over the other, and if there are, I'd guess there are more stringent standards on the higher-end bodies.

@Evildogofdoom - I tried saying that once, and then I got eaten alive by our members... :)

In all seriousness, I think you're right, especially as equivalency says the equivalent DOF will be even smaller than what we're used to seeing on FF.

However, the other side has a point too - the smaller D5500 cameras might be considered by enthusiasts and more advanced users, especially possibly as secondary cameras. And these folks might care. Furthermore, when mirrorless cameras don't even have these issues to begin with, it starts to behoove DSLR manufacturers to do everything they can to correct for, or at least allow for correction of, focus errors.

Nikon does sell a coomonly recieved with praise cheap 50mm F1.8g.This is often used by beginners to make nice portraits with background blur. But even this lens could have problems nailing focus on the eyes without micro focus adjust.

I do think this feature should be on the D5500 given the already advanced nature of it's focussing system. Don't think it has a place on the D3xxx series currently. Since that camera is just a great sensor in a very simplistic body.

@Horshack....that's exactly what they implied. Unintentional of course, but this is what happens when you aren't honest. I can deal with the stonewalling, etc...but when they are just going to give a "pat" answer and not even think about the implications, then I'm really turned off.

Interesting how focussed they are on Canon as their competition, even Sony barely got their attention.I also agree that the 1 system allows very nicely sized lenses but for me the image quality is not yet acceptable.If 1" sensor tech improves the way m4/3 did it could be a serious competitor.

He thinks that a Dslr with a optical viewfinder and large lens/accesoiry set is more attractive for the larger sensor market.

And we've seen developments from Nikon in making the camera's noticeably smaller. The 2 new dx zoom lenses and the D5500 make their basic Dslr kit noticeably smaller then what we are used too from them.

Now if you do want a Mirrorless for the better live view performance even smaller size and video capabilities. Then by all means shop somewhere else. It seems they''re not commited in serving everyone's needs.

Of course it is, but the system as a whole is largely dismissed by most enthusiasts because there are such better alternatives out there. Canon's system is by far the worst of all of them, so at least Nikon is second to last place.

So we arrive back at my original point, is that the Nikon execs seem to be just fine with this fact- fine by me really, but its their company- not mine! I surely wouldn't run my company that way! :) I'd get fired if I accepted next to last place as acceptable performance.

Pentax also has no credible mirrorless entries so technically nikon is 3rd to last. :) I do see what you're saying though. I would definitely like to see more glass for this system before I was to begin thinking about making a commitment to it.

True on Pentax. But then you need to add Leica, Sigma, and all the others to the list. I guess I'm talking about the bigger makers like Panasonic, Oly, Sony, Canon, Nikon...

The two biggest makers having the worst of the big five.

Nikon needs better bodies and glass both. Good bodies from the outset would have gained interest in the system. The last offering I guess is pretty good, but you can just tell the overall lack of interest in general to the 1 system. Seems to be a lot of coolpix influence in the decision making there.

Non avoiding answers? They are studying, and large sensor mirror less is a 'possibility' and other things are also 'possible' and no, Dx and Fx are equally important and when confronted that they develop more new Fx lenses they answer that they don't manufacture fewer Dx lenses...

Why do the keep pushing the the Nikon 1 series...its a failure. The Oly/Pan/Sony mirrorless are far better cameras at a far better price. Maybe if they released a Df styled mirrorless or a slimmer downed Df FX body, people might return to Nikon...

I have tried to love the V! & V2, but their menu and functionality just makes me hate them. I'm a Nikon man, but there vision in the 1 series is misplaced. I feel it is the Edsel of cameras (or maybe the one Homer made!). There is rumors of a Df styled mirrorless (I hope it's not a 1 series) and maybe a smaller Df styled body with a F mount...One can only hope...

Every time a Japanese camera executive is interviewed, it seems like you're pulling teeth to get even a glint of usable info out of them. Strained conversations is an understatement. Do they realize that's bad marketing?

In some ways they do make the best sensors, just not in every way. Sony may have have marginally better DR or ISO but they have dual pixel af. Best is a relative term depending on what is important to you.

Yes, but being straightforward ("DX is not as important as FX for us", "We have no intention of developing new good lenses for the DX format") would be even worse marketing.D7200 looks good enough for me. But the lack of fast DX zooms will force me to upgrade to FX in the future (I currently have a D7100). I still hope that Sigma will make a wide-angle fast APS-C zoom though...

No, for everyone, seeing as how there isn't another traditional-type DSLR in existence right now that offers electronic front curtain outside of Live View (Canons offers it in Live View, which is why we shoot every Canon DSLR in Live View for our studio scene test).

Which is what makes the D810's particular implementation an egregious missed opportunity - if offered in modes outside of Mirror Up with short delays, as we suggest, you could use to ensure sharp shots in even typical shooting scenarios.

Canon, conversely, would have to add EFC outside of Live View to enable the sharpness benefits in all shooting scenarios on the 5DS and 5DS R. We told Canon as much.

Thanks for the article. The basic Nikon answers I found a little dry, so it's great that you added the analysis - this gives an welcome elaboration about the interview and your impressions based on the off-record information you got.

@Jean Montreal: Nikon has already answered your question: the D810. Not only does it have split-screen focus, its Live View is incredibly detailed and sharp, with a high enough refresh rate that you can manually focus with incredible precision.

More about gear in this article

The D850 was just announced, and by all accounts it's shaping up to be a very impressive DSLR. But should you upgrade your current camera? In this article, we've broken down the D850's main selling points compared to several popular models.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.